1 that those records were not in that file cabinet on
2 the day you looked in there?
3 A. There’s no doubt in my mind at all.
4 MR. SANGER: Argumentative.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Rooney, with regard to
7 the search of that file cabinet, can you assure this
8 jury that everything that you saw, that there was
9 nothing in there that dealt with the Arvizos after
10 2003?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. SANGER: Objection. Argumentative; move
13 to strike.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I’m certain of that.
16 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions.
17 MR. SANGER: No further questions, Your
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
20 step down.
21 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I think we will get
22 to this witness -- my understanding is that they
23 were going to call a couple of police officers.
24 Before we get to this particular witness, we
25 may have to have our motion heard. There’s actually
26 motions from both sides.
27 THE COURT: Is that correct?
28 MR. SNEDDON: I was busy lining up the 12066
1 witness, Your Honor. I apologize, but --
2 THE COURT: He said this was one of the
3 witnesses we needed to have a hearing on. I don’t
4 have that on the papers that were --
5 MR. SNEDDON: Neither do I.
6 MR. SANGER: Well, we didn’t have -- they
7 had not listed this witness. They had not listed --
8 I’m sitting down, I apologize, just so I’m close to
9 the microphone.
10 They had not listed this witness for today
11 as of the time we did that motion, so we couldn’t
12 list it. Although we, I think, had a footnote in
13 there saying it would probably apply to other
14 witnesses.
15 MR. SNEDDON: It’s right on your list.
16 MR. SANGER: Yeah, last night.
17 MR. SNEDDON: Well --
18 THE COURT: (To the jury) all right. I’ll
19 give you an extra long lunch. We won’t reconvene
20 until the normal end of the lunch period, because I
21 want to take one, too.
22
23 (The following proceedings were held in
24 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
25 jury:)
26
27 THE COURT: All right. The jury is out.
28 All right. We’ll take up the issue that you 12067
1 wanted to exclude the testimony of Michaels and
2 Francia. And apparently this applies to someone
3 else, too.
4 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.
5 As I explained to the Court before we
6 started today in chambers with Mr. Sneddon, we had
7 received one witness list, which I’m not faulting
8 the D.A., but we received one witness list --
9 THE COURT: You don’t have to explain that.
10 MR. SANGER: We prepared this, and then we
11 have a different list here. On page six, I did
12 indicate in a footnote, “We respectfully request a
13 proffer as to all of the prosecution’s witnesses and
14 a 402 hearing, if necessary.”
15 Now, I can understand, for instance, the
16 last witness would be appropriate rebuttal. The
17 question that we have with regard to any of these
18 other witnesses is whether or not they are proper
19 rebuttal or if they have just been held back as
20 something that should have been put on during the
21 case-in-chief. We don’t know -- we can’t really
22 tell from Shane Meridith’s reports what aspect of
23 that they wish to present.
24 We also -- when it comes to the testimony of
25 Charli Michaels and Blanca Francia, in particular,
26 those are 1108 witnesses. And we have a particular
27 concern about 1108 witnesses being called in
28 rebuttal, who -- we have a particular concern about 12068
1 1108 witnesses called in rebuttal who could have
2 been called in the case-in-chief. And we cited the
3 Supreme Court’s statement on this from the Carter
4 case, which is really -- reflects the Penal Code.
5 You’re not supposed to use --
6 THE COURT: Yeah, I’ve read that.
7 MR. SANGER: So the dramatic effect that can
8 be achieved by holding things back to rebuttal is to
9 be avoided by the Court. It’s particularly
10 prejudicial when it has to do with 1108, because
11 1108 is particularly prejudicial to start with.
12 The Court made a delicate balancing
13 decision. And they shouldn’t be allowed, for
14 instance, with regard to Charli Michaels, in
15 particular, this is a witness who they knew about.
16 They knew that the conduct that she allegedly said
17 that she saw and she said on television in paid
18 appearances, that that conduct was denied not only
19 by Mr. Jackson, but it was denied by the person who
20 was the alleged victim. They knew that for the last
21 ten years. So there was no surprise.
22 There’s no purpose in bringing this person
23 in for rebuttal other than to say that -- other than
24 to make a dramatic point at the end of the case and
25 have that bell ringing in the jurors’ ears.
26 So we -- and that’s the brief that we filed.
27 I think we tried to keep it brief, but we
28 specifically highlighted that point; that 1108 has 12069
1 to be dealt with, I think, in an even more sensitive
2 fashion, because otherwise it is dramatic, and it is
3 improper rebuttal.
4 We can’t tell what exactly Blanca Francia is
5 going to be called for as far as rebuttal. But we
6 can’t imagine what it would be that would be
7 relevant, and that’s why we ask for a proffer.
8 Jesus Salas. There’s a paper that was filed
9 this morning and handed to us. Of course, just as
10 we handed them ours this morning, because this just
11 came up. And they -- the prosecution seeks to call
12 that witness for -- let’s see if I’ve got the right
13 one. As I recall, they said to show that Mr.
14 Jackson was intoxicated in the presence of young
15 people.
16 Now, that was already covered in the
17 case-in-chief. There was no particular defense
18 evidence about that. And that’s just the sort of
19 thing that should not be permitted in rebuttal.
20 When we brought this up in chambers, this
21 general subject matter this morning, Mr. Sneddon
22 said, well, there’s actually five areas that they
23 want to get into with either this witness or these
24 witnesses. I wasn’t sure exactly what the
25 delineation was, but we don’t know what those areas
26 are.
27 So we can identify some areas for some of
28 these witnesses that we believe is clearly improper 12070
1 rebuttal, and we don’t know what the other areas
2 are. So we would ask for a proffer as to each of
3 these witnesses so that we have a chance to have a
4 fair hearing on the issue of whether it is proper
5 rebuttal.
6 THE COURT: Who’s speaking for the People?
7 MR. ZONEN: I am, Your Honor.
8 The witnesses we’re talking about are Charli
9 Michaels and Blanca Francia; is that correct? I
10 don’t want to start talking about somebody else.
11 THE COURT: Yes. I think he wanted a proffer
12 on Shane Meridith, too. That’s what --
13 MR. ZONEN: What are the others? I think
14 Mr. Auchincloss will speak to Shane. Mr. Sneddon
15 will speak to Shane Meridith.
16 THE COURT: You found him?
17 Go ahead.
18 MR. ZONEN: As to the other two, as to
19 Charli Michaels and Blanca Francia, we’re intending
20 to call Charli Michaels to testify to three specific
21 things, matters that were brought up with defense
22 witnesses, and for which defense witnesses either
23 specifically denied or gave testimony inconsistent
24 with what we believe will be clarified by Charli
25 Michaels.
26 Charli Michaels will testify that she did
27 witness Michael Jackson dancing or rehearsing on one
28 occasion with Wade Robson and did witness an event 12071
1 where she had -- where Michael Jackson had his hand
2 around the crotch of young Wade Robson, who at the
3 time was probably around 11 or 12 years old, in a
4 move similar to a dance routine that he, in fact,
5 has done and performed.
6 She will also testify that she had had
7 conversations with Joy Robson, Wade Robson’s mother,
8 and that in the course of those conversations, Joy
9 Robson had complained to her and was very upset, and
10 expressed to her concern that Michael Jackson was
11 interfering with her relationship with her son; that
12 her son wasn’t spending time with her; that her son
13 had become distant from her because of the attention
14 that he was expressing. That’s directly
15 contradictory to what Joy Robson testified to on the
16 witness stand.
17 THE COURT: Well, is it?
18 MR. ZONEN: I have one more, but go ahead.
19 THE COURT: Go ahead.
20 MR. ZONEN: The third matter was when Wade
21 Robson was specifically asked questions about he and
22 Mr. Jackson throwing stones at the lion at the time.
23 And what he acknowledged initially on
24 cross-examination was, yes, that they both had, and
25 that in fact he had been encouraged to do so by Mr.
26 Jackson for purposes of tormenting the lion to get
27 it to roar. By the time the break came about,
28 throwing stones at a lion became throwing pebbles at 12072
1 a cage, but initially it was throwing stones at a
2 lion.
3 That event was witnessed by Charli Michaels,
4 who will testify that it is, in fact, throwing
5 stones at a lion.
6 We have listened to days and days and days
7 and days of testimony about bad conduct by Star and
8 Gavin Arvizo. It has been our position all along
9 that that kind of conduct by the boys at the ranch
10 is not just tolerated by Mr. Jackson, but encouraged
11 by Mr. Jackson. This is a direct example of how
12 that’s done. We believe it’s very relevant on that
13 issue.
14 As to Blanca, Blanca’s testimony would be
15 similar to that of Charli Michaels with regards to a
16 conversation she had with Joy Robson. And once
17 again, that conversation was also that she was in a
18 state of real distress; that she was crying; that
19 she was very upset; that she had not been able to
20 see her child; that her child had been kept from her
21 by Michael Jackson, a statement that she directly
22 denies. We think it’s relevant in that regard.
23 THE COURT: What -- let me ask you the --
24 what is -- how do you see that this is different
25 than what she testified to on direct in the defense
26 case?
27 MR. ZONEN: I don’t believe that she was
28 asked that question because it would have required a 12073
1 hearsay answer from Joy Robson. I don’t believe I
2 either asked it or it was offered. And I don’t
3 believe we would have been entitled to have done so.
4 To ask her about her conversations with Joy Robson
5 would have been hearsay. If somebody can show me a
6 transcript of that, I’ll certainly stand corrected.
7 But my recollection is that I never asked her that
8 question for that exact reason: It’s hearsay.
9 THE COURT: I thought she testified -- well,
10 you’ve seen the points and authorities by Mr.
11 Sanger.
12 MR. ZONEN: I have them right here, Your
13 Honor.
14 THE COURT: And he’s saying she didn’t deny
15 that on --
16 Isn’t that what you’re saying, Mr. Sanger?
17 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. She was asked and
18 then eventually --
19 THE COURT: Initially she didn’t remember,
20 and then --
21 MR. ZONEN: I’d have to see the transcript,
22 Your Honor. That’s not my recollection. My
23 recollection is we never asked her.
24 THE COURT: Well, my recollection is that she
25 didn’t remember, and then --
26 MR. ZONEN: We’re talking about Blanca
27 Francia?
28 THE COURT: Maybe I’m talking -- I’m talking 12074
1 about Miss Robson.
2 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry, I didn’t do that
3 examination. I thought you were referring to
4 Blanca.
5 THE COURT: Okay. I’m back to where I
6 went -- interrupted you, and you wanted to finish.
7 MR. ZONEN: My recollection is that Joy --
8 Joy -- their contention is Joy Robson was asked
9 directly those questions about whether or not she
10 had told other people that Michael Jackson was in
11 some way interfering with her relationship with her
12 child. And on the witness stand she was, what,
13 ambivalent about it? I’m not sure what the defense
14 position is.
15 THE COURT: I think she said -- first she
16 said she didn’t remember telling somebody that. And
17 then I have a vague recollection that she later
18 said, “Well” -- someone showed her the transcript
19 and she said, “Well, I must have said it,” you know,
20 “There it is.”
21 But then didn’t she try to say that it was
22 really because it was Mother’s Day or something?
23 I’m having a hard time remembering.
24 MR. ZONEN: If that was the transcript, then
25 it was likely a transcript of a deposition, which
26 certainly would be different from a conversation
27 that she would have had in the presence of --
28 THE COURT: Yeah, she was shown the 12075
1 deposition. Look at page five, where Mr. Sanger
2 lays it out, what -- lines 12 through 20.
3 MR. ZONEN: That’s with regards to -- hold
4 on. I’d have to see it in the context of the
5 entirety of the testimony. That would be again
6 saying, “I don’t recall the conversation.” I
7 believe that that would be grounds for being able to
8 bring in the person who actually had the
9 conversation to be able to impeach that witness with
10 the content of the conversation. And it is, of
11 course, separate and apart from the observations of
12 Blanca Francia as well.
13 I’m sorry, I just got this brief this
14 morning, and I’ve been trying to read it while
15 listening to testimony as well, so I’m not as
16 focused on it as perhaps I should be.
17 THE COURT: Take a minute to read it.
18 MR. ZONEN: Okay.
19 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I have the actual
20 transcript here. And it may be, with our dailies,
21 that we have a slightly different pagination. I’m
22 not sure. No, no, I think that is right. 9234. I
23 don’t know if you have the transcripts on the
24 computer that you can go back to.
25 THE COURT: No. I have the transcripts in my
26 office, but not on this desktop here.
27 MR. SANGER: Yeah, I have it here. And if I
28 may, I mean, there was a specific reference to 12076
1 Charli Michaels. And it is what we said. I can
2 show it to the Court and counsel.
3 THE COURT: Well, let me just ask you, since
4 you have the transcript, I was trying to remember --
5 I remembered her conceding, as you indicated in your
6 points and authorities, that she must have said
7 that. I mean, she said it because it’s there in the
8 deposition transcript.
9 Did she go on to say -- or did she say --
10 did she give any explanation as to why she would
11 have said that in the deposition? That’s what I was
12 trying to remember. I thought she’d given an
13 explanation, perhaps, about Mother’s Day or -- but I
14 don’t have the transcript.
15 MR. SANGER: I can answer that. Is this
16 unplugged?
17 Let me just stand up here, and I’m happy to
18 let --
19 (Discussion held off the record at counsel
20 table.)
21 MR. SANGER: There’s apparently a second
22 screen that has work product before we show it to
23 everybody. I don’t think it was a big deal.
24 THE COURT: Your secret tactics.
25 MR. SANGER: Secret tactics. It says, “Bob
26 Sanger, say this next.”
27 THE COURT: (To Ms. Yu) Oh, you’re the one
28 that’s responsible. 12077
1 MS. YU: For everything. Sorry, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Go ahead.
3 MR. SANGER: I could read it. Maybe that’s
4 the easiest way.
5 THE COURT: That would help me, and then
6 everybody gets to hear it.
7 MR. SANGER: And Mr. Zonen is welcome to
8 look over my shoulder, as long as I can get my
9 bifocals in the right place here.
10 MR. ZONEN: No, that’s all right.
11 MR. SANGER: All right.
12 THE COURT: You know, I’m just interested --
13 MR. SANGER: Yes.
14 THE COURT: -- to what explanation, if any,
15 she gave regarding that.
16 MR. SANGER: And I just had it and now I’ve
17 lost it, so.... It will just take me a second, I’m
18 sorry.
19 Okay. Yes. This is Mr. Sneddon asking
20 questions. Line 27, on 9234, according to the -- I
21 believe this is the final daily.
22 And it says:
23 “Q. Now, do you recall an incident that
24 occurred on Mother’s Day during 1990 on a trip to
25 the ranch?
26 “A. Yes.
27 “And you were upset, correct?
28 “A. Yes. 12078
1 “And you were crying at one point?
2 “Yes.
3 “And the reason for that was that you had
4 not seen your son all day, correct?
5 “Yes.
6 “And it was Mother’s Day?
7 “That’s right.
8 “And you found out that the reason you
9 hadn’t seen your son that day was because he had
10 been sleeping all day, correct?
11 “A. I think so, yeah.
12 “And you spoke to some people at the ranch
13 about your feelings, did you not? One of the
14 employees?
15 “A. I think someone asked me if I was
16 okay.
17 “Q. And you told them that you felt
18 that your son would rather be with Michael
19 Jackson than with you, correct?
20 “A. I don’t remember saying that.
21 “Q. Do you know somebody by the name of
22 Charli Michaels?
23 “A. Yes.
24 “And who is Charli Michaels?
25 “I think she works security at the ranch.
26 “And did you tell Charli Michaels that you
27 felt that the defendant, Michael Jackson, was
28 separating you from your son? 12079
1 “A. I don’t recall saying it.
2 “Q. Do you recall testifying to that in
3 your deposition with Mr. Feldman?
4 “A. No.
5 “Would it refresh your recollection if I
6 showed you a copy of the deposition?
7 “A. Yes.
8 “Mr. Sneddon: May I approach, Your Honor?
9 “The Court: Yes.
10 “The Witness: Okay.
11 “Q. By Mr. Sneddon: Does that refresh your
12 recollection?
13 “A. I don’t remember saying it, but I
14 testified to it.
15 “Q. I’m sorry?
16 “I don’t remember saying it, but obviously I
17 testified back then about it. I don’t remember
18 saying it.”
19 THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.
20 MR. SANGER: It goes on. As far as I can
21 tell, it’s -- yeah, maybe I should -- just to be
22 clear, I don’t think it changes it, but -- all
23 right. Let’s see. Where did I leave off. There?
24 MR. ZONEN: Right here, “Question.”
25 MR. SANGER:
26 “Q. You said that Wade would rather be
27 with Michael than with yourself and you were
28 upset about it? 12080
1 “Well, I read it, but I honestly don’t
2 remember saying it.
3 “Q. At the time you were at the ranch on
4 the first occasion” --
5 Is that how far we have to go? Yeah, I
6 think that’s it.
7 THE COURT: Thank you. That helps.
8 And then -- okay. On those issues, then my
9 ruling will be that I will allow the testimony, as
10 proffered, of Charli Michaels and Blanca Francia.
11 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I don’t know what
12 Blanca Francia -- we haven’t been told what Blanca
13 Francia is going to testify to. Oh, just on the Joy
14 Robson was upset?
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 MR. SANGER: Okay. Sorry.
17 THE COURT: There’s nothing -- is there
18 anything else that you’re representing?
19 MR. ZONEN: No, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: And on the -- and I think the
21 part on the rocks is admissible, too. I will allow
22 that.
23 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
24 MR. SANGER: I didn’t have a chance to
25 address that, of course, because that wasn’t in
26 their original proffer, but --
27 THE COURT: But I don’t need you to.
28 MR. SANGER: I had that feeling. 12081
1 THE COURT: And I am going to admit the
2 evidence on the “good parent” issue that you’ve
3 proffered.
4 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
5 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take our noon
6 break.
7 MR. SANGER: We didn’t hear what -- did I
8 miss something? We didn’t hear what Shane Meridith
9 had to say.
10 THE COURT: Why don’t you talk to each other,
11 and let me know if a hearing is necessary.
12 We’ll take our break.
13 (Recess taken.)
14
15 (The following proceedings were held in
16 open court in the presence and hearing of the
17 jury:)
18
19 THE COURT: Go ahead.
20 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor.
21
22 SHANE MERIDITH
23 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
24 stand and testified further as follows:
25
26 DIRECT EXAMINATION
27 BY MR. SNEDDON:
28 Q. Mr. Meridith, you are the same Shane 12082
1 Meridith that testified previously in this case?
2 A. Yes.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 (To the witness) Let me remind you that
5 you’re still under oath.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
7 THE COURT: Go ahead.
8 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Meridith, you’ve
9 already told us that you were employed at Neverland
10 Valley Ranch, correct?
11 A. That’s correct.
12 Q. And your role was as a security guard,
13 correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And during the dates -- during the month of
16 February, you were employed there, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And between the 17th and the 20th of
19 February, you were working that week, is that
20 correct, on those days?
21 A. Yeah. I would have been if I was there,
22 yeah.
23 Q. And the shift that you were working would be
24 what?
25 A. Predominantly it would be a 12-hour shift,
26 and it would be anywhere from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., or
27 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
28 Q. You were working in the daytime on many of 12083
1 those days, correct?
2 A. Yeah, correct.
3 Q. During the time between the 17th of February
4 and the 20th of February when you were at work at
5 the ranch, did you ever see any boys driving any
6 cars on the property?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. During the time that you were on the ranch
9 during that period of time, did you ever read any
10 notes in any of the logs that were kept that
11 indicated any boys were driving cars on the property
12 without adult supervision?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. Based upon your training and experience in
15 working at Neverland Valley Ranch, if somebody had
16 seen an underage child driving one of the cars
17 during that period of time, would that be the kind
18 of thing that would be noted in the logs of the
19 ranch?
20 A. I would imagine so.
21 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions.
22 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
23 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
24
25 CROSS-EXAMINATION
26 BY MR. MESEREAU:
27 Q. Mr. Meridith, Neverland is approximately
28 2800 acres, correct? 12084
1 A. That’s correct.
2 Q. And when you worked security, how many other
3 security personnel were there?
4 A. That could be anywhere from two to four
5 other individuals, besides myself.
6 Q. Did you all hang out together during your
7 shift, or did you go separate directions?
8 A. Yes, sir, we would have our own specific
9 jobs.
10 Q. And what specific jobs are you talking
11 about?
12 A. Well, one officer would be at the gate,
13 which would be the gate security, and that would be
14 a -- depending on how many officers were available,
15 we would split that shift up.
16 And the other officers, you would have either
17 one or two officers that were doing the house
18 checks, and then you would also have an officer
19 doing a mobile check in a vehicle.
20 Q. Now, you’re not sure which checks you did
21 during the time period the prosecutor just
22 identified?
23 A. Right. Yeah, I could have been doing
24 anything during that time.
25 Q. What could you have been doing?
26 A. Doing a perimeter check, doing a house
27 check, doing a mobile check, or working the front
28 gate. 12085
1 Q. Now, please describe what you mean by “a
2 perimeter check.”
3 A. You would drive -- what you would do is, we
4 would leave our security shack area. We would drive
5 through the front of the property, leaving actually
6 through the front gate, going off property for
7 about -- probably a mile or so in either direction
8 of the ranch, just to check to make sure that the
9 fence line was secure.
10 Q. If you were doing a perimeter check, someone
11 could have driven a vehicle on the property and you
12 wouldn’t see it, true?
13 MR. SNEDDON: Object. Calls for speculation.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 You may answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Sure.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: If you were doing a
18 perimeter check, how far away from the main house
19 would you be?
20 A. Well, like I said, you’d actually -- you
21 know, at some point during that mobile perimeter
22 check, you would actually leave the property. So
23 I’d say at any -- the furthest point you would be --
24 would probably be six, seven miles maybe.
25 Q. So you could be six or seven miles away from
26 where the vehicles are located, right?
27 A. Correct. During that check.
28 Q. And there would possibly be hills even 12086
1 blocking your view of the main house, correct?
2 A. That’s correct.
3 Q. And if someone were driving a vehicle around
4 the house, you would have no way of even seeing it
5 if you were looking that direction, right?
6 A. That’s correct.
7 MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, besides a perimeter
10 check, what else could you have been doing during
11 your security work during that time period?
12 A. You’d also do a house check, which was where
13 you’d be, you know, physically checking the house
14 area, walking around the house, going through the
15 arcade, areas like that.
16 Q. And what other types of checks would you
17 have been doing?
18 A. Other than that, other than the mobile or
19 the house check, you would be at the front gate, or
20 any check that was deemed necessary by a supervisor.
21 Somebody would have you check something.
22 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you whether or
23 not, if someone was caught driving a vehicle for a
24 short distance, for example, it would automatically
25 go into the log. Doesn’t actually get logged in,
26 does it?
27 A. Not -- I mean, that’s -- no. It wouldn’t be
28 unusual for it not to be logged. 12087
1 Q. In fact, every time a guest is found
2 violating any type of rule at Neverland and stopped
3 and told not to do it, it isn’t automatically logged
4 in, is it?
5 A. That’s correct. It’s left up to the
6 supervisor whether it gets --
7 Q. Would it be accurate to say that
8 percentagewise, when guests or their children are
9 caught violating some rule at Neverland, most of
10 those never get logged in anyplace, correct?
11 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the
12 question. It calls for speculation.
13 MR. MESEREAU: It’s cross-examination.
14 MR. SNEDDON: And doesn’t deal with the
15 subject matter.
16 THE COURT: Just a moment.
17 Overruled. It calls for custom and habit.
18 Go ahead.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: I now don’t remember if
20 you actually --
21 THE COURT: I’ll have it read back.
22 MR. MESEREAU: I’m sorry.
23 (Record read.)
24 THE WITNESS: I couldn’t -- I couldn’t
25 speculate on whether -- on a percentagewise. I
26 mean, personally, if something were to come to my
27 attention, it would be logged in. But that’s just
28 my personal -- you know, I wouldn’t know -- as far 12088
1 as somebody else dealing with something that happens
2 like that, I wouldn’t have any knowledge of that.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Wouldn’t you agree that
4 other security personnel often did not log things in
5 that they thought were violative of a rule?
6 A. I mean, that’s a fair assumption. That’s a
7 fair assumption. I wouldn’t -- again, if it’s
8 something that I would -- you know, that I thought
9 was pertinent, I would log it in. Or I would have
10 whoever I was supervising log it in. But, you know,
11 it’s possible, sure.
12 Q. Now, were you given a course on when to log
13 something in?
14 A. No, sir.
15 Q. Was anybody given a course about when they
16 should put something into the logs if they see a
17 rule being violated?
18 A. Not that I’m aware of.
19 Q. Is the decision to log something in pretty
20 much up to the individual who sees the violation?
21 A. That’s correct. Or the supervisor. Like I
22 said, more times than not it would be the
23 supervisor’s discretion whether it should be logged
24 in.
25 Q. If you’re going to log something in, what do
26 you have to do?
27 A. As far as?
28 Q. Where do you go to log it in? 12089
1 A. The front gate. You would call the front
2 gate and they would log it in the logbook there, and
3 then you’d also do a log at our shack area.
4 Q. All right. Now, if you’re doing a perimeter
5 search, and you find someone -- say you found a
6 visitor wandering around the property where you
7 didn’t want them to be - okay? - and you said, “Why
8 don’t you go back to the main house. You shouldn’t
9 be here. This is 2800 acres of property, and you
10 don’t want to get lost,” or whatever, you would have
11 to drive a distance, possibly, to log that in,
12 correct?
13 A. Yeah, you’d have to drive back to the main
14 house area to log that in, or just call it in to the
15 front gate.
16 Q. And while you were working at Neverland, do
17 you recall any situations where somebody brought to
18 your attention that some child had violated a rule
19 and you never, ever saw that logged in?
20 A. Yeah, that’s fair to say.
21 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
22
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. SNEDDON:
25 Q. Mr. Meridith, I’m not talking about
26 violating any rule at the ranch. I’m talking about
27 an underage child driving a vehicle on the ranch,
28 okay? 12090
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And in your experience, would that be
3 something that would be logged in or officials to be
4 notified?
5 A. Absolutely.
6 Q. The ranch has -- is very safety conscious,
7 is it not?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. And they try to minimize the amount of
10 liability or risk that can occur from the many
11 guests that occur at the ranch; isn’t that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the fact that an underage child would be
14 allowed into a vehicle and to drive it without
15 supervision would be something that would be a very
16 serious violation of the ranch protocol, would it
17 not?
18 A. I would think so, yes.
19 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. No further
20 questions.
21 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
22 THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
23 Thank you.
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Call Jesus Salas to the
25 stand.
26 THE COURT: You’re recalling him. He’s
27 already testified.
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, he has, Your Honor. 12091
1 THE COURT: You may be seated. You’re still
2 under oath.
3
4 JESUS SALAS
5 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
6 stand and testified further as follows:
7
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Salas.
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. You have previously testified in this case
13 that you were the house manager during the period of
14 2003 at Neverland Ranch, correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And during the period of February-March
17 2003, how often were you at Neverland Ranch?
18 A. I would say I was there like for a couple of
19 weeks.
20 Q. Okay. Did you -- were you working in the
21 month of February?
22 A. Yes, I was.
23 Q. How many days a week were you working in
24 February?
25 A. Well, I was working pretty much every day.
26 Q. Every day?
27 A. Uh-huh.
28 Q. Even weekends? 12092
1 A. Even weekends.
2 Q. And what about in the beginning of March?
3 Were you working in March?
4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. How many days a week were you working in
6 March?
7 A. It was about the same.
8 Q. Okay. So you were working without days off
9 during that period of time?
10 A. Well, I had some days off, but, you know,
11 pretty much I was busy most of the time, yes.
12 Q. Would you ever spend the night at Neverland?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. How often during that period of February-
15 March 2003?
16 A. I would say I spent more time during the
17 month of March.
18 Q. Okay. As far as spending the night there?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In the first couple of weeks of March, have
21 you had a chance to review the logs concerning your
22 attendance at Neverland Ranch?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. And how often were you spending the night
25 during the first couple of weeks in March?
26 A. It was about a week and a half, couple weeks
27 that I was spending -- staying there over the night.
28 Q. During the first couple of weeks? 12093
1 A. That’s correct, yes.
2 Q. All right. During your period of -- during
3 the period of time that you worked at Neverland
4 Ranch, and I believe you said you’ve worked there
5 for quite a few years; is that correct?
6 A. That is correct, yes.
7 Q. Going back to what year?
8 A. I’m sorry?
9 Q. Going back to what year? When did you start
10 working at Neverland Ranch?
11 A. I started working there in ‘83.
12 Q. Okay. So before Mr. Jackson purchased the
13 ranch you were working there?
14 A. That is correct, yes.
15 Q. Did you ever witness children, underage
16 children, driving motor vehicles at Neverland Ranch?
17 A. No. I never --
18 Q. Did you ever hear that underage children
19 were driving motor vehicles at Neverland Ranch?
20 A. No. Never heard anything about -- nobody
21 ever reported anything to me.
22 Q. Did you ever report to anybody that underage
23 children were driving vehicles at Neverland Ranch?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You never told Joe Marcus anything like
26 that?
27 A. I never told Joe Marcus.
28 Q. While you were house manager -- let me just 12094
1 refresh my memory. When did you start your duties
2 as house manager for Mr. Jackson?
3 A. When?
4 Q. When. When did you become house manager?
5 A. Oh, that was 2002, I believe.
6 Q. All right. During the period of time that
7 you were house manager at Neverland, did you have an
8 office in the main residence?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Did you have a desk in that office?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you ever keep money, cash money, in that
13 desk?
14 A. No. Never kept any money there.
15 Q. Did you ever have -- so was there ever a
16 time when you were missing money, where money was
17 taken from your desk or from your office area at
18 Neverland Ranch?
19 A. Never lost any money, no.
20 Q. During the time that the Arvizos were
21 guests at Neverland Ranch, did you ever keep
22 anything that -- maybe a paperweight of some sort,
23 something that looked like a crystal made of plastic
24 or glass? Did you ever have anything like that in
25 your office or your desk?
26 A. Not that I can remember, no.
27 Q. Did you ever have anything like that that
28 you found to be missing -- 12095
1 A. No.
2 Q. -- in your office or desk during the period
3 of time that the Arvizos stayed there?
4 A. No, not at all.
5 Q. During the time that you were house manager
6 and the Arvizos were staying at Neverland Ranch, did
7 you ever receive a report of any kind from a chef
8 working in the kitchen that money had been removed
9 from a drawer or from the kitchen area that belonged
10 to one of the chefs?
11 A. No. Never was reported to me.
12 Q. Did Angel Vivanco specifically ever tell you
13 that money was taken from the kitchen area by one of
14 the guests?
15 A. No. Never told me anything.
16 Q. During the time that you were house manager
17 at Neverland and the Arvizos were staying there or
18 at any time, did Angel Vivanco ever tell you of an
19 incident where Star Arvizo was playing around with a
20 knife involving Mr. Vivanco?
21 A. No. Never was reported to me.
22 Q. You have previously testified that one night
23 you helped the Arvizos to leave Neverland Ranch,
24 that you drove them to their home. Do you remember
25 testifying about that?
26 A. That is correct, yes.
27 Q. The night that you drove the Arvizo family
28 from Neverland Ranch, did you ever notify Joe Marcus 12096
1 that you were leaving Neverland with the Arvizo
2 family?
3 A. No, I didn’t never talk to Joe Marcus that
4 night.
5 Q. Did you ever notify anybody to tell Joe
6 Marcus that you were leaving Neverland with the
7 Arvizo family?
8 A. No, I didn’t.
9 Q. Never had a conversation with him that
10 evening?
11 A. No.
12 Q. During the period of February and March of
13 2003, you remember that the Arvizo family spent
14 quite a bit of time at Neverland, true?
15 A. That is correct, yes.
16 Q. Can you characterize in a percentage basis
17 the number of nights during that period that the
18 Arvizo children spent the night in Mr. Jackson’s
19 bedroom?
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you aware whether
23 or not the Arvizo children ever spent the night in
24 Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you ever personally
28 witness the fact that the Arvizo family would spend 12097
1 the night in Michael Jackson’s bedroom?
2 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may answer.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. As house manager, would you often -- how
7 late would you stay before you went home at night?
8 A. Varies. Sometimes it was one o’clock, two
9 o’clock, three o’clock in the morning.
10 Q. And when you would leave the property, would
11 you generally be aware of the location of individual
12 guests who were in the main residence?
13 A. I would say yes.
14 Q. Okay. Was that part of your job, to be
15 somewhat aware of what the guests were doing inside
16 the main house? Not what they were doing, but I
17 should say their various locations?
18 A. Well, it was necessary for me to know where
19 they were so I can notify the security for safety
20 reasons.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And based upon your personal experience --
24 let me back up.
25 So during that period of time when -- let’s
26 say in the evening hours and in the early morning
27 hours when you were staying late at Neverland Ranch,
28 would you frequently -- would you generally stay 12098
1 around the main residence?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Would you be inside the main
4 residence?
5 A. I was inside there.
6 Q. And that’s where your office was, correct?
7 A. That is correct, yes.
8 Q. So were you personally aware -- during this
9 period of time, February-March, when the Arvizos
10 were visiting Neverland Ranch, were you generally
11 aware of their location, the location that the
12 Arvizo boys slept in?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 You may answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was aware.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And can you
18 characterize, based upon your own personal
19 observations, the -- on a percentage basis the
20 number of nights you would estimate that the Arvizo
21 boys spent in Michael Jackson’s bedroom during that
22 period of time that they were visiting in March and
23 February of 2003?
24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 You may answer.
27 THE WITNESS: I would say they spent 90
28 percent of the time. 12099
1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Salas, during that
2 same period of time, focusing again in 2003 -- I
3 believe you said that you left your employment at
4 Neverland sometime during the summer of that year;
5 is that correct?
6 A. That is correct, yes.
7 Q. During that period of time of 2003, before
8 you left your employment, did you ever see Michael
9 Jackson when he was in an intoxicated state?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope;
11 improper rebuttal.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: How often would you see
16 Mr. Jackson in a condition that you would
17 characterize as intoxicated during that period of
18 time?
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
20 relevance.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 You may answer.
23 THE WITNESS: It was quite a few times.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you ever see him
25 intoxicated in the presence of his own children?
26 A. Yes, I did. Yes.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 12100
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I didn’t hear.
3 A. I said, yes, I did.
4 Q. How often did you see him intoxicated in the
5 presence of his own children?
6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 You may answer.
9 THE WITNESS: My belief, it was, say, about
10 three times.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you ever see him
12 intoxicated, in such an intoxicated condition that
13 you had a concern as to whether or not he could
14 properly and responsibly care for his children?
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond
16 the scope; leading.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 You may answer.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I -- I did.
20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And what was your
21 opinion about that?
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; irrelevant
23 opinion.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may answer.
26 A. To me, it wasn’t -- it wasn’t -- it wasn’t
27 safe for the skids to be around him.
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you, Mr. 12101
1 Salas.
2
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. MESEREAU:
5 Q. Mr. Salas, you say you’ve seen Mr. Jackson
6 intoxicated maybe three times during that period?
7 A. That is correct, in the way that I thought
8 it wasn’t safe for him and his family.
9 Q. Was a nanny around?
10 A. Yes, it was.
11 Q. In fact, there was a nanny around taking
12 care of his children, correct?
13 A. That is correct, except when he used to take
14 them to his room, yes.
15 Q. Okay. And have you ever been intoxicated in
16 your house?
17 A. Oh, yes.
18 Q. Were your children there?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; irrelevant.
21 THE COURT: The answer is in. Next question.
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you say you saw the
23 Arvizo children in Michael Jackson’s room, right?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Were you in the room with them?
26 A. I was not in the room with them.
27 Q. Pretty big room area, isn’t it?
28 A. Yes, it is. 12102
1 Q. It’s two levels?
2 A. That is correct, yes.
3 Q. And people sometimes sleep on the lower
4 level, right?
5 A. True.
6 Q. Sometimes people sleep on the higher level,
7 right?
8 A. That is correct, yes.
9 Q. In fact, Mr. Jackson has had a lot of people
10 in and out, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You don’t know where anyone was sleeping
13 when the Arvizo children were in that area, right?
14 A. Actually, I knew where they were staying.
15 Q. Well, they were staying in that large area,
16 correct?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. You testified earlier at one point you saw
19 them on the lower level, right?
20 A. That’s correct, yes.
21 Q. The lower level below Michael Jackson’s bed,
22 true?
23 A. True.
24 Q. His bed’s upstairs, and you saw them
25 sleeping downstairs, right, one time?
26 A. That is right, yes.
27 Q. Now, was it part of your job to normally go
28 into his room? 12103
1 A. Only when he asked me or he needed
2 something.
3 Q. And if he asked you to bring him something,
4 you would open the door and go in, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And there are other people he would
7 ask to come in his room and bring him things, right?
8 A. That is true, yes.
9 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you about whether
10 or not Angel Vivanco ever reported a knife incident
11 to you, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Were you aware that he never said he
14 reported it to you; he said he reported it to Rudy
15 Lozano?
16 A. I wasn’t aware of that. Never was reported
17 to me.
18 Q. Who is Rudy Lozano?
19 A. He is the chef.
20 Q. Okay. He was Mr. Vivanco’s direct
21 supervisor, true?
22 A. Yes. In the kitchen area, yes. But I was
23 responsible for all of them.
24 Q. Okay. Now, did you know that Star Arvizo
25 pulled a knife on Kiki Fournier one time?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Irrelevant; no
27 foundation.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 12104
1 You may answer.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know that?
3 A. I was not aware of that.
4 Q. So she didn’t report that to you?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Not everybody always reported to you
7 problems that the Arvizo children caused at
8 Neverland, right?
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 You may answer.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, I’m just finding that
13 out.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yeah. Did anyone ever
15 report to you that Star was found with an adult
16 magazine that he said he brought from his own home?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was that ever reported to
20 you?
21 A. Never was reported to me, no.
22 Q. Did anyone ever report to you that Star and
23 Gavin Arvizo were caught masturbating in the guest
24 unit?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was that reported to you?
28 A. No, it wasn’t. 12105
1 Q. Was it ever reported to you that Star Arvizo
2 went into the control room of the amusement park and
3 wrote the words “Suck Dick” on the wall? Anyone
4 report that to you?
5 A. No. Never was reported to me.
6 Q. Was it reported to you that one of the
7 security guards caught Star and Gavin Arvizo in the
8 wine cellar alone with a half-filled bottle of wine?
9 A. No, that was never reported to me either.
10 Q. Was it reported to you that Gavin Arvizo
11 told Angel Vivanco, “You put alcohol in my milkshake
12 or I’ll get you fired”?
13 A. No, it wasn’t.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; misstates the
15 evidence.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And argumentative.
18 THE COURT: Misstates the evidence, sustained.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me. I’ll rephrase it.
20 My mistake.
21 Q. Was it ever reported to you Star Arvizo told
22 Angel Vivanco, “You put some alcoholic beverages in
23 my milkshake or I’ll get you fired”?
24 A. No, it was never reported to me.
25 Q. Was it ever reported to you that Star and
26 Gavin used to spit on employees when they rode the
27 amusement park rides?
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative. 12106
1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 THE WITNESS: No. Never was reported to me
3 either.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it ever reported to
5 you that Star and Gavin Arvizo would take their
6 shoes and throw them at people from the amusement
7 park rides?
8 A. Never heard that either.
9 Q. Was it ever reported to you that Star and --
10 Star and Gavin Arvizo made an absolute mess out of
11 their bedrooms in the guest quarters?
12 A. Not that I can remember, no.
13 Q. Was it ever reported to you that Star and
14 Gavin Arvizo used to search the television for adult
15 films --
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: -- at their guest unit?
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Assumes facts not in
19 evidence.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Not everybody reports
22 every violation of a guest to you, do they?
23 A. Well, I guess not.
24 Q. Now, you said you learned a lot of things
25 weren’t reported to you, right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Okay. And where have you learned that from?
28 A. Well, being part of responsibility. 12107
1 Q. Now, there are drawers in the kitchen,
2 correct?
3 A. There are what? I’m sorry.
4 Q. Drawers in the kitchen, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And certainly someone in the kitchen could
7 put money, if they wanted, in one of the drawers
8 temporarily, couldn’t they?
9 A. I believe so, yes.
10 Q. And not everybody would report that to you,
11 would they?
12 A. I guess not necessarily, no.
13 Q. And if one of the Arvizo children stold
14 money from a drawer in the kitchen, you wouldn’t
15 necessarily find out about it, would you?
16 A. Not if they don’t tell me.
17 Q. And if Angel Vivanco thought his job was in
18 jeopardy if he reported it, you might not hear,
19 right?
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Assumes facts not in
23 evidence.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, have you looked at
25 any records to determine whether or not you called
26 Joe Marcus the night you drove Janet Arvizo from the
27 ranch?
28 A. No, I never -- no. 12108
1 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I
2 showed you a phone record showing a phone call on
3 the night of February 12th, time, 12:55 a.m., to Joe
4 Marcus from a ranch number?
5 A. No, I can tell you, because Joe wasn’t even
6 at the ranch that day.
7 Q. Do you know why anyone would be calling his
8 number?
9 A. I have no idea, no.
10 Q. Where was he at that point, do you know?
11 A. Not sure, but I believe he was at home.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know who would have called his
13 number at 12:55 a.m. on Wednesday, February 12th --
14 A. No, I don’t.
15 Q. -- 2003? If I showed you the record, would
16 it refresh your recollection at all?
17 A. Probably not.
18 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, you said something about
19 being at the ranch for a couple of weeks during that
20 time period; is that right?
21 A. That’s correct, yes.
22 Q. And what did you mean by “a couple of
23 weeks”?
24 A. I mean to spend the night, most of the
25 nights there.
26 Q. And are you talking about working all day
27 and all night, or just all night?
28 A. No, talking about working all day and all 12109
1 night.
2 Q. Okay. Okay. And that’s in the main
3 residence?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Well, if you’re working all day or all
6 night, or both, in the main residence, are you
7 necessarily going to see if somebody drives a
8 vehicle?
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You’re not always looking
12 at the vehicles, are you, when you do your work?
13 A. Absolutely not, no. That was not my job to
14 keep an eye on them.
15 Q. And that’s a very big house, right?
16 A. It’s true. Very big -- big house.
17 Q. And what kind of work were you doing in the
18 house at that point in time?
19 A. Well, it was different. Many things. Just
20 making sure that the house was clean; that we had
21 what the guests needed. And it was not just that.
22 It was just also driving the limousine different
23 areas. It could be picking up people, dropping off
24 people. So I was not always there at the ranch.
25 Q. And if you’re not always there at the ranch,
26 you couldn’t possibly always know if someone’s
27 driving a vehicle on the ranch, correct?
28 A. That is correct. 12110
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
2 THE COURT: Sustained.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you always on the
4 ranch during those weeks that the prosecutor asked
5 you questions about?
6 A. Well, once again, I was not always there.
7 Like I said, I was always driving somebody somewhere
8 else.
9 Q. Okay. Where would you drive people to?
10 A. I drove people to L.A., pick up people from
11 L.A., Burbank. I mean -- yes, Burbank. Santa
12 Barbara, you know.
13 Q. And how often would you drive people off the
14 ranch to L.A., or Burbank, or Santa Barbara?
15 A. Well, it depends. I mean, it was -- it was
16 to the point that I was driving people, I mean,
17 almost every other day or every day during the
18 Christmas season.
19 Q. And if you’re driving people off the ranch
20 to L.A. and Burbank and Santa Barbara, and you’re
21 gone every day or every other day, would it be
22 reasonable to say you’re not going to be looking at
23 who’s driving a vehicle on the ranch?
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 You may answer.
27 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And are you saying that 12111
1 during that period of time, you were probably more
2 off the ranch than on it while you were working?
3 A. Not necessarily, because if it was -- it
4 depends on the area that I was picking up people.
5 It could have been two, three hours, four hours,
6 five hours. But I was -- you know, I spent a lot of
7 time at the ranch also.
8 Q. When you drove to Los Angeles, typically how
9 long would it take you from the moment you left the
10 ranch till the moment you returned?
11 A. Talking five hours, six hours.
12 Q. Okay. Now, were you the primary person who
13 would drive people off the ranch?
14 A. No. It was another driver before I started
15 to do that, yes.
16 Q. Who would decide whether you were going to
17 drive someone off the ranch?
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as
19 beyond the scope.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor asked you
22 questions about your office at Neverland, okay?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. And where is that office located?
25 A. It is located on the back of the house.
26 When you first go in the main entry in the back, it
27 is the first room on your left side.
28 Q. And is that very close to the kitchen? 12112
1 A. It’s just a wall dividing that.
2 Q. Is there a door to that office?
3 A. No, it has no door.
4 Q. In fact, people can go in and out of that
5 office very freely, correct?
6 A. That is correct, yes.
7 Q. In fact, you pass that office when you’re
8 coming in from the back, right?
9 A. Correct, yes.
10 Q. You pass that office if you’re leaving the
11 house from the back, right?
12 A. That is correct, yes.
13 Q. And what do you find in that office?
14 A. There’s videos. There’s -- I mean, there’s
15 all kinds of stuff. Glasses. I mean, stuff that is
16 there that belongs to Mr. Jackson.
17 Q. There are phones, right?
18 A. There’s a phone, yes.
19 Q. Virtually anyone can walk in or out of that
20 office, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You were not the only one using that office
23 at that point in time, right?
24 A. No, because everybody can go in and use it.
25 Q. Were you the only one using the drawers in
26 that office at that point in time?
27 A. No, not necessarily.
28 Q. In fact, other people used those drawers and 12113
1 didn’t tell you what they put in them, right?
2 A. Well, I know pretty much I knew what was in
3 those drawers.
4 Q. Well, if you were on a drive to L.A. and
5 back, you wouldn’t know who was in or out of that
6 office, right?
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
10
11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
13 Q. Mr. Salas, I wanted to just make sure I
14 understood one thing about your testimony correctly.
15 Mr. Mesereau asked you at the beginning of
16 his cross-examination if you saw Mr. Jackson
17 intoxicated only three times. Is that accurate,
18 that you saw him intoxicated only three times?
19 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I limited that to
20 the time period.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Let me rephrase.
22 Q. Let’s say during the last -- during the year
23 2003, how often did you see Mr. Jackson intoxicated?
24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may answer.
27 A. Lately, it was -- it was a lot. I mean, I
28 would say it was -- it became to the point that he 12114
1 was intoxicated a lot.
2 Q. How often in a week?
3 A. I’ll say, you know, four times maybe, or
4 more than that.
5 Q. And Mr. Mesereau asked you a number of
6 questions about whether certain things were reported
7 to you, such as children asking for vodka in a
8 drink. That was never reported to you?
9 A. That was never reported to me, no.
10 Q. Or children writing something nasty on a
11 wall. That was never reported to you?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Now, do the amusement park operators report
14 to you as the house manager?
15 A. No, they never reported it to me.
16 Q. So I believe your former testimony is that
17 only the maids would report to you, and the chefs,
18 the people who work in the house?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And can you tell me, is there a general rule
21 concerning giving children what they ask for at
22 Neverland?
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; beyond the scope.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, if a child asks
26 for something like vodka from somebody, is that
27 something that would necessarily be reported?
28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; 12115
1 beyond the scope.
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I mean, is that
4 something that you’ve seen reported before?
5 A. Well, I would say that it had to be
6 reported.
7 Q. I’m sorry?
8 A. It had to be reported if there was something
9 like that, yes.
10 Q. And did you ever see a report of that
11 nature?
12 A. Never got any reports.
13 Q. Then how do you know it had to be reported?
14 A. Well, I’m saying because if it’s a kid, and
15 the kid is asking for a drink, you know, somebody
16 needs to tell somebody.
17 Q. So that’s the type of thing that would have
18 been reported if it happened?
19 A. Absolutely, yes.
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. No further
21 questions.
22 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
23 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
24 step down.
25 Call your next witness.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Call Vic Alvarez.
27 THE COURT: Come forward, please, to the
28 witness stand. You may be seated. You’re still 12116
1 under oath.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
3
4 VICTOR ALVAREZ
5 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
6 stand and testified further as follows:
7
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Alvarez.
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. I should say “Detective Alvarez.”
13 Did you interview an employee of Neverland
14 Ranch by the name of Julio Avila?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. And did that interview take place on March
17 21st, 2005?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. And why did you interview Mr.
20 Avila on that date?
21 A. I had received a defense interview that had
22 been taken by a private investigator.
23 Q. And did you go to confirm some of the
24 information that you received in that report?
25 A. I did.
26 Q. Did you ask Mr. Avila some questions about
27 the Arvizo family operating one of the amusement
28 park rides at Neverland Ranch? 12117
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What did he tell you?
3 A. He said that -- I asked him in particular
4 the ride, I believe it was the swing, how it
5 operated. He said it had an “off” and “on” button,
6 and that Star had started the ride after watching
7 him operate it.
8 Q. Did he tell you which Arvizo children were
9 present when that ride was being operated?
10 A. Yes, he did.
11 Q. Who was present?
12 A. He said all three were present.
13 Q. Did he tell you whether or not there were
14 any other children who were in the amusement park
15 area during that time?
16 A. Only the three children were present.
17 Q. There were no other children present?
18 A. No.
19 MR. SANGER: Objection; leading.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did he say anything
22 about operating a Zipper ride immediately before he
23 went over and stopped the Arvizo children from
24 operating that ride?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Did he say who he was operating that Zipper
27 ride for?
28 A. No. 12118
1 Q. Did you ask him about the Arvizo children
2 and their behavior in general?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you ask him about whether or not they
5 crashed any carts, or did he give you any
6 information about that?
7 A. Yes. He -- I believe he did say that they
8 would ride the carts recklessly, but he said all the
9 kids -- I think he was pretty general about all the
10 kids ride the carts recklessly.
11 MR. SANGER: I’m going to move to strike
12 after, “Yes.” He said they did. Nonresponsive.
13 THE COURT: Stricken; nonresponsive. The
14 answer is, “Yes.”
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine.
16 Q. Did he say anything about how all the kids
17 operated carts at Neverland?
18 A. He did.
19 MR. SANGER: Objection; relevance.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What did he tell you
22 about that?
23 A. He said that all the kids ride the carts
24 recklessly.
25 Q. Did he tell you anything in general about
26 the behavior of children who are guests at
27 Neverland?
28 A. I asked him. 12119
1 Q. All right. And did he answer you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What did he tell you?
4 A. He said that basically the kids are free to
5 do whatever they want. And I asked him, “Do they
6 pretty much run amuck here?” And he said, “Yes.”
7 Q. At some time during your interview, did he
8 ever express some confusion as to whether or not he
9 was talking about the behavior or misbehavior of the
10 Arvizo children as opposed to the Cascio children?
11 MR. SANGER: Objection; calls for a
12 conclusion without foundation.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did he ever express to
15 you any indication that he didn’t understand he was
16 talking -- you were talking about the Arvizo
17 children?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And how did he express that?
20 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. I may
21 have to object to the last question in order to make
22 it correct, so I’d move to strike the answer for the
23 purpose of objecting that it calls for a conclusion
24 without a foundation.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 You may answer.
27 THE WITNESS: The question again, please?
28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The question was, how 12120
1 did he express to you any confusion he had over
2 which family you were trying to ask him questions
3 about?
4 A. He did not know the sister’s name, and he
5 was confusing names of the two families.
6 Q. Did he ever say anything to you about where
7 he believed the family that was -- that you were
8 asking questions about, did he ever indicate where
9 he believed they were from?
10 A. He just said they were not from California.
11 Q. Did he ever indicate to you whether or not
12 he filed reports on any of this information that he
13 was giving you?
14 A. He did not file any reports.
15 Q. Did he ever indicate to you whether or not
16 he had knowledge that Mr. Jackson possessed erotic
17 materials, adult erotic materials in his bedroom?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What did he say?
20 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. This is
21 without foundation.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 You may answer.
24 MR. SANGER: Well, I’m -- okay.
25 THE WITNESS: We were --
26 MR. SANGER: It seems to me there should be
27 a foundation first as to how this witness would have
28 known -- 12121
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object to the
2 speaking objection. This is impeachment of the
3 testimony.
4 THE COURT: The objection was overruled. Go
5 ahead.
6 THE WITNESS: There was mention of adult
7 material and where it had come from. And I asked
8 him if it came from -- “Could it have possibly come
9 from Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?” at which time he said,
10 “Yes, it could have” --
11 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object and move to
12 strike. That’s just based on speculation. It’s not
13 impeachment.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I don’t think he’s
15 finished answering the question.
16 THE COURT: Are you finished? Had you
17 finished answering the question?
18 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead and finish.
20 THE WITNESS: He said, “Yes, it could have
21 come from the bedroom.”
22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And did he say why?
23 A. He was aware that there was this type of
24 material in the bedroom.
25 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, it’s improper
26 impeachment if there’s no foundation for the
27 testimony, the hearsay. I object.
28 THE COURT: I’ll sustain that objection and 12122
1 strike his answer.
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe -- well --
3 THE COURT: Being aware lacks foundation,
4 personal knowledge.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: We did -- well, I could
6 ask to tell you at sidebar that there was specific
7 testimony regarding this that goes to this
8 impeachment, irrespective of foundation.
9 MR. SANGER: I mean, I know what it is, if
10 there’s any question in the Court’s mind.
11 THE COURT: Well, come forward.
12 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)
13 THE COURT: I’m going to strike this
14 witness’s testimony concerning what knowledge Mr.
15 Avila had about adult material, and I’m going -- at
16 the ranch, and I’m going to base that ruling on the
17 fact that there is insufficient foundation for that
18 testimony, so the jury’s ordered to disregard that
19 testimony.
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 Q. Mr. Alvarez, during this interview that you
22 had with Mr. Avila, did you ask him generally about
23 the behavior of the Arvizo children at the ranch?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. Did he ever mention to you anything about
26 the Arvizo children misbehaving using the quads?
27 A. No.
28 Q. Lastly, did you attempt to contact Chris 12123
Subject: May 25, 2005 
Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:49 am
